Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match!

This room is for discussion related to learning about the faith (Catechetics), defense of the Faith (Apologetics), the Liturgy and canon law, motivated by a desire to grow closer to Christ or to bring someone else closer.

Saint Augustine of Hippo is considered on of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time and the Doctor of the Church. Learn More:Saint Augustine

(Quote)Paul-866591 said:
And for fifty years before that, the laity was telling the hiearchy that something was am...

(Quote)Paul-866591 said:

And for fifty years before that, the laity was telling the hiearchy that something was amiss. They got most of what thery asked for and now the laity with the same mind set are saying the same thing.

Still, not a single word of Dogma or Doctrine has changed over the last 2000+ years. The Mass is still the Mass, whether or not you like the ritual as it is performed.

The Church still stumbles along, as it has for 2000+ years, with normal human beings who fail and rise up again. The same ancient herecies raise their ugly heads again and again.

Yet the Church survives and will continue to do so with the protection of the Holy Spirit.

The Church has always, is now and forever into the future will be in need of renewal.

Without chaging one iota of dogma or doctrine, the Church has adapted itself to the societies and cultures in which it finds itself. And it will continue to do so until the end of time.

Throughout history, since Christ Ascended into heaven, He or the Blessed Virgin as well as all the Saints throughout the ages, always and continually call for the same things; pray, do penance, Love God and our neighbor. The message has not changed, nor will it.

Still, the single most important rule applies, treat your own waywardness. Obey the Commanments and live your life as modeled by Christ Himself. The rest will take care of itself. In the words of St. Francis, "Lord help me accept the things I cannot change, to change the things I can and the wisdon to know the difference."

So we should all stop titlting at meaningless and non-essential windmills and live our lives in Christ.

--hide--

Wise and true words. We need to focus on Our Savior He gives us His Precious Body right here, right now for us to receive every day. Nothing is more important.

(Quote)Paul-866591 said:
The Novus Ordo, or Vatican II Mass as you call it, is not reponsibel for any heresies. To...

(Quote)Paul-866591 said:

The Novus Ordo, or Vatican II Mass as you call it, is not reponsibel for any heresies. To make such a claim is reaching. There is no heresy in the Mass itself, it does not promulgate or teach anything against doctrine.

Any heresy arises from the mind of an individual.

--hide--

Paul,

If you take a look at the english translation of the third typical edition of the Roman Missal, Eucharistic Prayer III, you come across this clause:

"you give life to all things and make them holy."

This is not a statement of potentiality, but a statement of actuality...and an absolute proposition, at that ("all things") That being the case, am I to believe that the gravel in my parking lot is alive? Am I to believe that Satan is holy?

Is it not heresy to believe that Satan is holy, since Satan is everlastingly damned?

(Quote)Chelsea-743484 said:
Paul, If you take a look at the english translation of the third typical editio...

(Quote)Chelsea-743484 said:

Paul,

If you take a look at the english translation of the third typical edition of the Roman Missal, Eucharistic Prayer III, you come across this clause:

"you give life to all things and make them holy."

This is not a statement of potentiality, but a statement of actuality...and an absolute proposition, at that ("all things") That being the case, am I to believe that the gravel in my parking lot is alive? Am I to believe that Satan is holy?

Is it not heresy to believe that Satan is holy, since Satan is everlastingly damned?

--hide--

You are reading more in there than there is.

LIfe here meana actuality. As for satan, no he is not holy but he does fulfill part of God's plan.

Or to put it another way, anthing that is and is according to the nature God made them is holy. God made Satan with free will and he acted contrary to God's plan. But when He made him, he was holy.

(Quote)Laura-56149 said: So let's just go a step further. He didn't have women at the Last Supper, only his chosen 12. Is...

(Quote)Laura-56149 said:

So let's just go a step further. He didn't have women at the Last Supper, only his chosen 12. Isn't that where He washed their feet? The Mass is based on the Last Supper, so does that mean women and children shouldn't partake. Children receive the Eucharist at around 6. I don't remember reading in scripture about any 6 year olds being there either.

--hide--

The point is that Jesus was making priests. The Apostles understood what the priesthood was, and obviously they realized that they weren't becoming priests in order to offer the Holy Sacrifice to one another, that's just plain ridiculous. They understood the idea of offering the sacrifice to make reparations (among other things) for the sins of all of the people. There is a reason why Jesus did the feet washing on Holy Thursday. If he didn't intend for this to be linked to the priesthood then he would have done this on a different day. Everything he said and did was significant. And I personally trust the years and years of tradition where only the men's feet were washed over this relatively new, wanting to be inclusive to everyone, watering down of our beautiful Catholic faith.

(Quote)Laura-56149 said: Actually if you want to be a true traditional Catholic you would be celebrating the Eucharist in Aramaic...

(Quote)Laura-56149 said:

Actually if you want to be a true traditional Catholic you would be celebrating the Eucharist in Aramaic:) Saying it in Latin would've been "modern" in the early days of Christianity.

When did we start celebrating Mass in Latin?

By Victoria M. Tufano|15| Print | Share

ArticleChurchGlad You Asked

The instinct of Christianity has always been that people should worship in a language they understand.

The first language of Christian liturgy was Aramaic, the common language of the first Christians, who were Palestinian Jews. While Hebrew was the language of scripture and formal worship, Christian worship occurred in the home where Aramaic was spoken. The words Abba and maranatha are Aramaic.

Christianity quickly spread from Palestine to the rest of the world, and the Eucharist came to be celebrated in many languages, including Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian. In most of the Mediterranean world, the common language was Greek, which became the language of liturgy in that region and remained so until the early third century.

Eucharist itself is a Greek word, meaning thanksgiving. The phrase Kyrie eleison and the words liturgy, baptism, evangelize, martyr, and catechumen, among other familiar church words, are also Greek in origin.

From around the third century B.C., what we call “classical” Latin was the language of the Roman aristocracy and the educated classes. Around the time Jesus was born, during the reign of Augustus Caesar, the language began to change. The Roman aristocracy was destroyed by war and political infighting; when they disappeared, their language went with them. Classical Latin was replaced by a less refined version of the language.

In the third and fourth centuries A.D. this form of Latin began to replace Greek as the common language of the Roman world and soon became the language of the liturgy.

Exactly how this change in the liturgy came about is uncertain. In the early church the liturgy was led extemporaneously by the bishop, according to a pattern. There were written examples of Eucharistic Prayers, but they were models, not prescribed prayers. The last such document in Greek was written around the year 215. By the sixth century, the Roman Canon (which is still in use, also called Eucharistic Prayer I) appears, completely in Latin and prescribed for use exactly as written.

What happened during those centuries? It seems that a core of the Roman Canon was developed and used first, probably even in liturgies that were partly in Greek and partly in Latin, until the final Latin version evolved. Because Christians had not used Latin for worship prior to this, words had to be adapted or imported (often from Greek) to express Christian ideas, beginning the development of an ecclesiastical form of Latin. There is also evidence that the Roman Canon was influenced by prayers from the Eastern churches.

Even though Latin evolved into various modern languages, Latin remained the sole language of the Roman Rite until the Second Vatican Council returned to the original instinct of Christianity that people should worship in a language they understand.

This article appeared in the July 2010 issue of U.S. Catholic (Vol. 75, No. 7, page 46).

--hide--

The issue isn't the language in and of itself. The Latin Mass, in my opinion is much more reverent and gives the feeling of a Holy Sacrifice vs. everyone gathering around the table for a meal. Latin is important only insofar as it's a dead language where words don't mean different things and abuses don't start creeping in. It's my understanding that it's customary to speak one language and pray in another as the Holy Family spoke Aramaic but prayed in Hebrew. Being a traditional Catholic has nothing to do with whether or not the Mass is celebrated in Latin or Aramaic... Being a traditional Catholic means, to me anyway, standing up for Christ and not approving of the indifferent and disrespectful way I see him being treated at so many Masses today.

(Quote)Monica-730858 said: The issue isn't the language in and of itself. The Latin Mass, in my opinion is much more r...

(Quote)Monica-730858 said:

The issue isn't the language in and of itself. The Latin Mass, in my opinion is much more reverent and gives the feeling of a Holy Sacrifice vs. everyone gathering around the table for a meal. Latin is important only insofar as it's a dead language where words don't mean different things and abuses don't start creeping in. It's my understanding that it's customary to speak one language and pray in another as the Holy Family spoke Aramaic but prayed in Hebrew. Being a traditional Catholic has nothing to do with whether or not the Mass is celebrated in Latin or Aramaic... Being a traditional Catholic means, to me anyway, standing up for Christ and not approving of the indifferent and disrespectful way I see him being treated at so many Masses today.

--hide--

I still think that the words of conscecration in the Mass should have remained in Latin.

(Quote)Monica-730858 said: The issue isn't the language in and of itself. The Latin Mass, in my opinion is much more r...

(Quote)Monica-730858 said:

The issue isn't the language in and of itself. The Latin Mass, in my opinion is much more reverent and gives the feeling of a Holy Sacrifice vs. everyone gathering around the table for a meal. Latin is important only insofar as it's a dead language where words don't mean different things and abuses don't start creeping in. It's my understanding that it's customary to speak one language and pray in another as the Holy Family spoke Aramaic but prayed in Hebrew. Being a traditional Catholic has nothing to do with whether or not the Mass is celebrated in Latin or Aramaic... Being a traditional Catholic means, to me anyway, standing up for Christ and not approving of the indifferent and disrespectful way I see him being treated at so many Masses today.

--hide--

I am a Roman Catholic and I am obedient to the Holy See and trust that the Holy Spirit is guiding Christ's church, that is the way Jesus set it up. I will follow the Pope instead of a French Archbishop.

"The Holy See recognises as fully legitimate the preference that many Catholics have for the earlier forms of worship. This was apparent in Pope John Paul II's 1988 apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei and Pope Benedict XVI's 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. Naturally, however, the Holy See does not extend its approval to those who take a stand against the present-day Church leadership."

I am appalled at the people in a few recent threads that are critisizing and second guessing the Holy Father. Since it has come up, I have investigated what being a "Traditionalist" entails and it all became clear. Sad we have such division.

Amen!! I was watching S+L (Canadian broadcaster) coverage of Pope Francis taking posession of St. John Latern and the priest who was providing commentary for the Mass said that Pope Francis simplistic style, and easy to understand message is resonating in a profound way with Catholics around the world. The priest was saying that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of Catholics that are availing themselves to the Sacrament of Reconcillation. If washing the feet, and wearing black shoes is bring people closer to God then how is this a problem??

(Quote)Monica-730858 said: The point is that Jesus was making priests. The Apostles understood what the priesthood was, an...

(Quote)Monica-730858 said:

The point is that Jesus was making priests. The Apostles understood what the priesthood was, and obviously they realized that they weren't becoming priests in order to offer the Holy Sacrifice to one another, that's just plain ridiculous. They understood the idea of offering the sacrifice to make reparations (among other things) for the sins of all of the people. There is a reason why Jesus did the feet washing on Holy Thursday. If he didn't intend for this to be linked to the priesthood then he would have done this on a different day. Everything he said and did was significant. And I personally trust the years and years of tradition where only the men's feet were washed over this relatively new, wanting to be inclusive to everyone, watering down of our beautiful Catholic faith.

--hide--

What I feel is plain ridiculous is someone who assumes they know more than the priest who was chosen to occupy the Seat of Peter. It seems there are a few of those on this CATHOLIC site. Isn't are church questioned enough from without? Sad we have to deal with it from within also.

(Quote)Laura-56149 said: What I feel is plain ridiculous is someone who assumes they know more than the priest who was chosen...

(Quote)Laura-56149 said:

What I feel is plain ridiculous is someone who assumes they know more than the priest who was chosen to occupy the Seat of Peter. It seems there are a few of those on this CATHOLIC site. Isn't are church questioned enough from without? Sad we have to deal with it from within also.

--hide--

There is no need to get personal or make assumptions about what anyone else believes. I stated what I perceive being a traditional Catholic to mean, and no, I do not attend Mass at an SSPX parish. Just because someone is the Pope doesn't mean they are following the will of the Holy Ghost. Look back throughout Church history and see what some of the popes have done. They are only infallible when speaking ex cathedra. I have a great deal of respect for the Chair of Peter and I pray for our Holy Father but I think it's wrong to assume that just because something new is being done in the church means it's right. What about all of the other popes who agreed that only men should have their feet washed on Holy Thursday?

Here's an article from Fr. John Zuhlsdorf's blog:

"In two weeks Pope Francis has done more to promote Summorum Pontificum than Pope Benedict did since the day he promulgated it.

After the decision by Pope Francis to wash the feet of two women on Holy Thursday, conservative Catholic priests and laypeople alike will now be looking for ways out of the dilemma posed by the foot washing rite of the Holy Thursday Mass.

The foot washing rite is actually optional, though that fact is little grasped by liberals who impose the options they like as obligatory on those who would prefer to opt out. Liturgical law prescribes that only men (viri in Latin) can be chosen for that rite. Priests who want to adhere to the law will find themselves facing fierce opposition by liberals demanding that women be included. Bishops will be hard-pressed to explain how priests should keep to the liturgical law when the Pope himself flouts it. By including women, the Pope has cast all liturgical laws into the hazard.

Priests who opt to omit the foot washing from Holy Thursday Mass will be seen paradoxically as dissenting from the law that clearly excludes womens feet from being washed. To avoid the dilemma entirely, priests and lay Catholics who wish to see proper liturgical law observed will find a suitable option in the older form of the Roman Rite, the so-called Tridentine form emancipated in 2007 by Pope Benedict.

After Summorum Pontificum went into force, a clarifying document called Universae Ecclesiae was issued to help people interpret correctly how how to implement Pope Benedicts provisions. Universae Ecclesiae says that all customs or liturgical practices not in force in 1962 (such as altars girls, communion in the hand and now, apparently, washing womens feet), are not to be integrated into liturgies in the older form of the Roman Rite. Priests and lay Catholics who want Holy Thursday without dilemmas and controversies and fights about whose feet can be washed, have the legitimate option of the traditional Roman Missal which is, effectively, bullet proof.

Dont kid yourselves. Many priests and lay Catholics are upset by the Popes move and the dilemma this poses at the local level throughout much of the western Church.

War-weary Catholics are back in the trenches, but they now have Summorum Pontificum. And Pope Francis has done more to promote Summorum Pontificum then Pope Benedict ever did."